GoldSpider:"The militia" at the time the Constitution was written was "everyone capable of firing a gun". It was not an organized body.

Exactly! If that were the intent, those Constitution framers, after having received the message from Jesus, would have included some kind of caveat in the 2nd Amendment stating that it had to be a well regulated militia or something, and you can't tell me all that legal mumbo-jumbo is in the 2nd Amendment.

Is there for context and is not mutually exclusive with the right being tranferred to the individual. The second can be an individual right and still be consistent with the notion of a well regulated militia.

Of course it can. That is how it is currently interpreted. That is the result of Heller. I disagree with that interpretation and so did 4 of the justices hearing the case. Its just like, my opinion, man. I know its not the law.

EatsCrayons:In Canada, there is legislation provisions for how guns are stored (locked and unloaded).

In the United States, requiring that guns be locked and unloaded by law has been explicitly ruled to be unconstitutional:

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

Endive Wombat:CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: CPennypacker: Endive Wombat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Endive Wombat: I understand why the left likes to keep those numbers in the stat, because it bolsters their message, but it is disingenuous.

Those people are not any less dead and a gun was not any less involved. Bolster has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough, but suicide is not a crime. Buttttt...trying to use incorrectly inflated gun death stats as a basis for legislating tighter gun control measures is wrong.

How is it inflated? We want less deaths. I don't follow your logic. Less suicides = less deaths.

Sigh...

Suicide is not a crime. Yeah, it is a death caused by the use of a gun, but that's it. So when attempting to legislate tighter gun control (restricting where guns can be carried, magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, universal background checks, etc.), suicide stats have NOTHING to do with any of these things. Ergo using incorrect data.

Oh for fark's sake

Clearly you do not agree with my point of view. Why?

When I'm trying to determine the number of people killed by [object], my primary consideration is this: would the person have died if [object] did not exist? History, and plenty of data have shown that when it comes to suicide, if you remove the [object], or even make it inconvenient, the person is substantially less likely to attempt suicide, and less likely still to be successful. Whether or not suicide is a crime is irrelevant, we're not measuring how many crimes in which a gun was used result in death.

nekom:No, we can MODERNIZE a centuries old document. Just like we did with slavery, women's suffrage and other parts. When the second amendment was written, people had muskets.

Given that, what is the basis for it being illegal for me to pursue my own nuclear program? Arms are arms, right? Fully automatic weapons are largely illegal, why is that?

How is that pending legislation to amend the constitution coming along?

I haven't heard of much progress in that area, but that is what is necessary to "modernize" that document. Slavery, women's suffrage, senatorial elections, prohibition, direct taxation, 18 year olds voting, etc. were all brought about by following the constitutional amendment process.

"The militia" at the time the Constitution was written was "everyone capable of firing a gun". It was not an organized body.

In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right. It means you have the right to keep and bear arms in the context of your militia service. Don't look at me if you disagree with that interpretation, talk to Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer. I just agree with them.

Fortunately, your illogical interpretation is directly contradicted by established law and, therefore, is legally false.

The concept of a right being "collective" is inherently illogical; rights a property of individuals by their nature. "Collectives" may only have powers granted to them. A "collective" cannot exercise a "right".

HeadLever:MJMaloney187: See that part about "a well regulated militia"? That means the Federal Government has the authority to enforce enhanced background checks. Anybody who says otherwise is only seeing what they want to see.

No. Read the Heller decision.

obviously background checks are already in place and have not been successfully challenged Constitutionally so how universal they are would have no bearing (Heller decision or not)

"The militia" at the time the Constitution was written was "everyone capable of firing a gun". It was not an organized body.

In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right. It means you have the right to keep and bear arms in the context of your militia service. Don't look at me if you disagree with that interpretation, talk to Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer. I just agree with them.

Fortunately, your illogical interpretation is directly contradicted by established law and, therefore, is legally false.

The concept of a right being "collective" is inherently illogical; rights a property of individuals by their nature. "Collectives" may only have powers granted to them. A "collective" cannot exercise a "right".

What the fark is "legally false?" I already said it was my opinion and not the law. I never said the collective exercises a right. Individuals do but only in the context of the collective.

hasty ambush:sammyk: Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

The ban on "Assault Weapons" and high capacity magazines expired so I can claim that more people being able to arm and defend themselves with previously banned weapons contributed. to the decline.

I think it would be smarter to look at the decline in gang turf wars and drug violence during that time than gun laws or lack there of. It won't serve your agenda but it is closer to the truth.

Most "gun control" legislation is nothing more than polticians jerking off a particular constituency(If we just get rid fo those guns with flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and pistol grip stocks we will all be safer nonsense). Normally that constituency is the soccer mom for the children crowd or those who also need government to protect them from the evils of large soft drinks and trans fats is also afraid the 80 million lawful gun owners.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 403x401]

*sigh*

Between 1998 and 2009 1.9 million gun purchases were denied by using NICS background checks. That couldn't posibly have any effect on gun violence now could it?.

nekom:ko_kyi: nekom: They were both written in the same general era, and they are both pretty much anachronisms.

There is a process for revising them as well. What's the holdup?

Kansas, Texas, etc. Which is why it's never going to happen. I'm not naive, I know the political climate will NEVER allow for the 2nd amendment to be repealed. It's just my opinion that it ought to be.

I can't wait until we get rid of the "right to vote." Hell it's not even in The Constitution.

CPennypacker:Do you disagree that reducing the number of available guns though any means would also reduce the number of people killed by them, whether the gun is pointed at the person holding it or otherwise?

Then its a relevant statistic.

Well, duh. Yeah, reduction in availability of guns over a long time would lead to a reduction in gun related crimes. Here's the thing though...a significant reduction of guns in the US is not going to happen. My point is that lumping suicide by gun stats along side violent gun crime stats is like...i dunno...talking about all house fires in the US and including "fires" that happen in fire-pits and fireplaces. Yes, it is technically a fire in the home, but not the same thing.

Yes, a death is a death, it is tragic and sad, but I cannot fathom any real, PRACTICAL, and implementable legislation that cuts down on gun related suicide (which again...is not a crime). If it is not a gun, it is running your car in a shut garage, slitting your wrists, taking a lot of pills, jumping off something tall...

GoldSpider:CPennypacker: In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right.

The concept of "collective rights", which only exist at the expense of individual rights, is (in my opinion) inconsistent with the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

CPennypacker:Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

CPennypacker:GoldSpider: CPennypacker: In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right.

The concept of "collective rights", which only exist at the expense of individual rights, is (in my opinion) inconsistent with the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

A "collective sense" interpretation of any protection of an established right is irrational and in contradiction of the intent of the Bill of Rights.

draypresct:Take a look at figure 42 of http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf.

Handgun crime experienced a peak in the early 90s, then dropped back down to their 80's levels (the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase). Homicide rates due to other guns, knives, blunt objects, and other weapons also dropped. Knife-related homicides dropped from about 4500 to about 2000 between 1980 and 2008 (again, the rate difference would be greater due to the population increase).

This suggests that there was more going on than just gun legislation, unless you can think of a reason that gun legislation reduced knife-related homicides.

/I have no idea what caused that peak in the 90s.

You can take a couple things away from that graph. I noticed homocides by all "other" weapons had a steady but moderate decline. But homocide by gun was all over the place.

IlGreven:If that 5-year-old kid got a "My first knife" or "My first spear" instead of "My first rifle", I guarantee you his sister would still be alive.

If his parents hadn't loaded, cocked, de-safed, and then left the rifle lying in the corner with him unsupervised, his sister would be alive. For an analogy, imagine the parents removed the guards from a circular saw, jammed down the power button, and left it on the floor while they took a shower. Its really disgusting.

The fault here is with his actively dangerous parent, not the company that made a rifle designed to be as safe as possible for supervised instruction in markmanship. (Its sized right for youths, the cocking spring is so stiff you need adult strength to cock the rifle, its single shot, etc.)

GoldSpider:CPennypacker: Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

That's a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one.

Its a clear difference. Its only at the expense of the individual right if you believe it to be an individual right. The legal interpretation is whats relevant. The collective right doesn't hold back the individual right because the individual right doesn't exist if you interpret the second amendment as granting a collective right instead.

mrshowrules:obviously background checks are already in place and have not been successfully challenged Constitutionally so how universal they are would have no bearing (Heller decision or not)

My point was not that universal background checks were unconsitutuional through Heller. Just that it had nothing to do with the "Well Regulated Militia" provison of the amendment. Heller held that this prefatory clause does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.

Dimensio:CPennypacker: GoldSpider: CPennypacker: In the context of serving in a militia, which is referred to as the collective right.

The concept of "collective rights", which only exist at the expense of individual rights, is (in my opinion) inconsistent with the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Well its not really at the expense of an individual right if you interpreting the 2nd in the collective sense. Its instead of an individual right. It can't be at the expense of a right that doesn't exist.

A "collective sense" interpretation of any protection of an established right is irrational and in contradiction of the intent of the Bill of Rights.

CPennypacker:GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion? But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.

pdee:CPennypacker: GoldDude: FTFA: "The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics".

Yet it would be racist to even imply that the perpetrators of gun violence and killings are more likely to be a particular race...?

You do realize that posts like this just make it look like you're butthurt that people won't let you be as racist as you want, right?

Is it racist to point out that Bla people are more likely to suffer from sickle cell anemia when the facts clearly support that conclusion? But it IS racist to point out that Bla men are much more likely to be murdered and that the perp is much more likely to be a Bla man when the facts clearly support that conclusion.

No, its racist to complain that people will think you're racist if you say racist things.

HeadLever:mrshowrules: obviously background checks are already in place and have not been successfully challenged Constitutionally so how universal they are would have no bearing (Heller decision or not)

My point was not that universal background checks were unconsitutuional through Heller. Just that it had nothing to do with the "Well Regulated Militia" provison of the amendment. Heller held that this prefatory clause does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.

I see what you meant. I disagree with that interpretation but I'm not on the SCOTUS.

BayouOtter:IlGreven: If that 5-year-old kid got a "My first knife" or "My first spear" instead of "My first rifle", I guarantee you his sister would still be alive.

If his parents hadn't loaded, cocked, de-safed, and then left the rifle lying in the corner with him unsupervised, his sister would be alive. For an analogy, imagine the parents removed the guards from a circular saw, jammed down the power button, and left it on the floor while they took a shower. Its really disgusting.

The fault here is with his actively dangerous parent, not the company that made a rifle designed to be as safe as possible for supervised instruction in markmanship. (Its sized right for youths, the cocking spring is so stiff you need adult strength to cock the rifle, its single shot, etc.)

Funny...when someone actually points that out, they get attacked like that cameraman at the funeral. The community keeps saying it's "God's will". Yes, it's God's will that these parents should not have children. But my point was their first mistake was buying the gun for the kid in the first place. Everything that happened afterwards confirmed that mistake.

mrshowrules:HeadLever: mrshowrules: obviously background checks are already in place and have not been successfully challenged Constitutionally so how universal they are would have no bearing (Heller decision or not)

My point was not that universal background checks were unconsitutuional through Heller. Just that it had nothing to do with the "Well Regulated Militia" provison of the amendment. Heller held that this prefatory clause does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.

I see what you meant. I disagree with that interpretation but I'm not on the SCOTUS.

Heller doesn't limit all regulation. It even says so in the majority opinion.

ArmagedDan:clkeagle: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

I would agree, if only those in charge of drafting legislation would stop using it as a platform for grabbing guns from the wrong people. Often while admitting that it's their true goal. The problem is that our attempts to solve the problem are hijacked by those with an agenda.

What would really create great strides in reducing gun crime is to actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473 form. It's a felony, and yet only an insignificant proportion are ever busted over it.

A felon or other barred individual just lied to try and buy a gun, and nobody's interested in following up on that!? Lanza was rejected a week before sandy hook. And yet we are told there is neither the time nor the interest in enforcing the existing law.

No, we have to strip the property of millions of law abiding Americans instead. Because lord knows THAT's cheap, fast and constitutionally sound.

/rant over

Where do you paranoid freaks get this shiat? No one is seriosly talking about confiscating guns. Hell even the proponents of another assault weapons ban have all but admitted defeat and have changed focus to trying to expand background checks. rants like yours are why people call you "gun nuts"